Neumann Peter J
Department of Health Policy and Management and Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(6):537-41. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523060-00002.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provisional decision against memantine and other medications for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has generated much discussion. In its decision, NICE expressed concern about the data source used for the utility scores in the industry submission of the memantine model. NICE therefore turned to an alternative data source. However, in doing so, it made the key assumption that moderate-to-severe AD patients living in the community were independent. Furthermore, the NICE data source also had its limitations. There are numerous limitations in inferring from available data how utilities vary between dependent and non-dependent patients with AD. Most importantly, we lack direct evidence from primary data. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that patients with severe AD, and likely those with moderate AD as well, have full-time care needs, regardless of their setting. The NICE assumption that they do not results in a difference in utilities between dependent and non-dependent AD individuals of only 0.06. This seems to be at the low end of what one would consider a reasonable estimate.
英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)对美金刚及其他用于治疗阿尔茨海默病(AD)药物的临时决定引发了诸多讨论。在其决定中,NICE对美金刚模型行业提交材料中效用评分所使用的数据源表示担忧。因此,NICE转而采用了另一种数据源。然而,这样做时,它做出了一个关键假设,即生活在社区中的中重度AD患者是独立的。此外,NICE的数据源也有其局限性。从现有数据推断AD依赖型和非依赖型患者之间效用如何变化存在诸多局限性。最重要的是,我们缺乏来自原始数据的直接证据。尽管如此,似乎有理由假设,重度AD患者,可能还有中度AD患者,无论其所处环境如何,都有全职护理需求。NICE认为他们没有这种需求的假设导致依赖型和非依赖型AD个体之间的效用差异仅为0.06。这似乎处于人们认为合理估计的低端。